This alternate history map shows the Holy Persian Empire, on of the many successor states of the Mongolian Empire. Temudjin, better known as Chinggis Khan, converts to the Nestorian branch of Christianity during his time with the Kereit tribe, founding a Christian-Mongolian dynasty.The main thrust in the west goes more to the Holy Land with side shows in Europe; under Ögedei Khan and Paolos Hülagü Khan the Sultanates in the Middle East are crushed and Christianity is restored. Great Khan Yohannis Möngke, and later Great Khan Petros Qurutai of North China, confirm the rule of Paolos Hülegü Khan over the Holy Land.Over the time the Great Empire breaks up, but its most powerful successors, the Holy Persian Empire, the Delhian Empire and the Chinese Yuan Empire (both with a strong Christian influence) have still a large influence.

Thank you!A little bit. There's - as I stated - still a Mongolian dynasty in North China (the South broke free), and a Mongolian ruled North India.Australia is already known (discovered by Yuan traders). The last remnants of Muslim rule in Europe were crushed in the 1320 with Mongol help. Generally the Persian Emperor-Khan (who also has the title of Protector of Jerusalem) has a special position among the Christian rulers. A great expedition to Italy in 1290 (just a visit, but with a large fleet and army to portrait the power) lead to a treaty between the Holy See and Persia, giving the Catholic and Nestorian (and other Eastern rites) an equal level.

Have you thought about how native Mongolian religion might've influenced the Nestorian Church? I was thinking about how Tengri is interestingly similar to the Judeo-Christian God, ie. being associated with the sky, fatherhood and eternity.

Also, as a sidenote, I tend to sidestep from Wikipedia as much as possible (often the articles can come across as biased to one side or another), though I do use it to find recommended source material links.

Wikipedia is serviced mostly by nerdy folks who know their stuff, and other sources that are actually well-managed and aren't rabble are very hard to come by, so I go to Wikipedia. The reputation that ANYONE can edit it is bullshit because if you put something stupid like 'penis' on a WW2 page someone deletes it a few seconds later and you get banned.

Thus I trust Wikipedia, even if it whores itself out on the top of the page for my damn money.

It depends on how popular and hoe seriously a subject is taken. For example, I searched for a page that had to do with Maasai religion, and eventually happened upon a page that basically talked about ancient aliens and reptile-peopel inspiring their religion. It's during finds like that you need to realize that this was probably just some nutjob who'd gotten a fixed idea and attempted to sully wikipedia with it. No references or footnotes - obviously.

Some signs to go for are uncyclopedic language (ie. argumentative, rhetorical phrases), language that differs signficantly from how the rest of the article feels (indicative of some random just shooting in something that's not properly verified) and of course lacking sourcing or footnotes.

It's by no means perfect - but it's a very good start - and tends to get the big facts correct.

Wow, Mongolian Christwank is such a kickass concept I cannot even comprehend. Those names of Khans with Greek names crack me up, badly I wish there was more detail in the map, maybe it could be a bit topographical or feature main roads, but the idea is worth more than one fave. Good work!